????sunsets????

Originally Posted by Griz

Do this: do a google search on the following "hypo x hypo" and tell me what you get. You will find Clay English site that shows this morph combination. Run a genetic wizard query and it will again confirm my statement. Take a look at mgreptiles morph page and it will again confirm 100% hypo's. Every site I have ever seen confirms this. I would love to see a site that states to the contrary as I have never seen this before.

Griz

I'm with you Griz. I learned it the same way that you are saying and come to find that there are a lot of people here that believe differently. I did find on Salmonboa.com a genetics table that seems to agree with what people are saying here so I guess that people are finding support for both viewpoints depending on which site they are on. Will the real hypo to hypo outcome please stand up!

Try this link.


http://www.salmonboa.com/Salmongenetics.htm

That is an interesting link. I have never seen it before. It appears to contradict not only my experience in actual breeding but the experience of numerous other breeders/websites. I would be real curious to hear more......hmm......

Griz

As I am sitting here reviewing Rich's site, I have to wonder why the discrepancy? I saw where a lot of his data came from the mid 1990's. I wonder if the hypo gene has gone from incomplete to complete over a period of years? I wonder if he is still obtaining that 25% ratio in breedings done as of late? This certainly makes for some interesting reading!

Griz

At this point in time there has been over 400 views of this thread. Anyone who has been following this thread and has not posted an opinion please do so. I think we would all like to see more opinions on this issue.

I guess a good question to ask at this point is; Has anybody bred 2 hypos together that were known not to be supers and produced normals from that pairing?

Griz, as the one that originally posted those percentages here, I will say that there are several genetics wizards that verified it...as well as a few people with much stronger genetics backgrounds than myself. The terms homozygous and het are not all that uncommon in conversations about hypos (or any other dom/codom trait), in my rather limited experience. Since your findings differ from the theories that I have been learning/relearning, I am going to step back and let those with a stronger background take over the explanation. If you want examples of other genetics wizards that show the same results, let me know...but you can find them just as easily with the google search you suggested earlier

Griz, I did the google search you recommended. Much of the stuff that came up was not applicable, but the first two that I found that referred to boas contradict what you are saying:
HYPO (X) HYPO (=) HYPO BOAS (POTENTIAL DOM), COMMONS (from Micky Hinkle's site)

Colombian Boa
Boa constrictor imperator
These are the normal offspring from a Hypo x Hypo breeding. These are some really nice looking babies (From Jeff Risher's)

Originally Posted by hhmoore

Griz, as the one that originally posted those percentages here, I will say that there are several genetics wizards that verified it...as well as a few people with much stronger genetics backgrounds than myself. The terms homozygous and het are not all that uncommon in conversations about hypos (or any other dom/codom trait), in my rather limited experience. Since your findings differ from the theories that I have been learning/relearning, I am going to step back and let those with a stronger background take over the explanation. If you want examples of other genetics wizards that show the same results, let me know...but you can find them just as easily with the google search you suggested earlier

All I can say is that there is something going on. My own breedings (including numerous done by a good friend of mine) support my findings. However, for someone like Rich Isle to state 25% wt certainly cannot be thrown to the side! What has taken place to this gene to cause a variance of this nature? When looking at other dominate traits (ie motley) you obtain the same 100% motley outcome. Again, I have to wonder if the incomplete vs complete has some how mutated?

Things like this simply intrigue me!

Griz

Originally Posted by Griz

What is a het to het when dealing with a hypo? There is no such thing as a het hypo when dealing with boa's. The hypo trait is a homogenous trait. Either it is a hypo or it is not. There is no het as in dealing with a recessive gene.

Griz

LOL - I was corrected on THAT issue quite awhile ago, Bob..interestingly enough, it was in a thread that YOU started. (you really need to pay better attention, rofl) Think back to when you were trying to decide what route to take with $1500.
http://www.faunaclassifieds.com/foru...4&postcount=11

and Josh...see what I mean about the information you get in conversations with friends. Bob and I have both expressed views that we were certain of in this very thread. More interestingly, we could both "prove" what we were saying, so anyone interacting with one of us could easily have been swayed....and passing that information along in another place and time could have gotten them corrected.
Bob is intrigued.
I am intrigued, but also very frustrated - I put aside much of what genetics I had picked up along the way, and attempted to learn the real story...now the confusion is looming. It's almost enough to make me scream (not a therapeutic scream, mind you... I just like to scream )